2001 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 10

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Time

Introductions by Members

School (Protection of Parent

Volunteers) Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 8).

Hon. C. Clark

Introduction and first reading

Crown Corporations Governance

Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 14).

Hon. G. Plant

Introduction and first reading

Oral Questions

Government handling of nurses' dispute

J. MacPhail

J. Kwan

Tuition freeze

I. Chong

Government handling of nurses' dispute

J. MacPhail

Moratorium on offshore oil and gas

drilling

M. Hunter

Tabling Documents

Document regarding nursing shortages in

provinces

Speaker's Statement

Policy for public written questions

Motions without Notice

Sessional order for public written

questions. Hon. G. Collins

J. MacPhail

Budget Debate

H. Long

Hon. R. Neufeld

Hon. G. Plant

J. Kwan

J. Bray

R. Hawes

K. Manhas

K. Krueger

Hon. G. Collins

Tabling Documents

Report of guarantees and indemnities for

fiscal year ended March 31, 2001

[ Page 245 ]

THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 2001

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C.

Clark: I have the pleasure to introduce Elyn Dobbs, who is a director of the

B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils and a former chair of the

district parent advisory council for the Vancouver school district, who is

joining us today. She's been a longtime advocate for a parent's right to be

involved in his or her child's education.

I'd also

like to welcome Cheryl-Ann Johansen and Beryl Watson, who are personal friends

of mine that joined me for lunch today. I hope the House will make all three

very welcome.

Hon. G.

Hogg: Sixty-six years ago tomorrow a strapping young boy was born to a

railroad family in Blue River, British Columbia. He later went on to get the

nickname Ichabod, and he's now the Speaker of the House. Would you please join

with me in wishing a happy birthday to our Speaker.

Locke: In the gallery today are my daughter Ashley and her friend Sonja

Rattan. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. L.

Reid: In keeping with the celebration of birth, I would like to ask this

House to make very welcome the newest member of the Liberal caucus, Janet Marie

Dawson, born yesterday, and daughter of Kathryn Dawson of the Premier's office

and Bob Dawson.

B. Kerr:

I have some very good friends visiting me today from the mainland. They've come

over to the Island here because, as you know, on southern Vancouver Island it

never rains. So I'd like the House to welcome Ron and Noreen Avery from West

Vancouver.

[1405]

Hon. S.

Santori: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce to the House some

very special friends from Trail: Mr. Rob Brown, who is also the chief prosecutor

for West Kootenay–Boundary, and his children Alison, Melissa and Justin. As

well, from Trail we have Rick Larose and Ms. Ellen Larose, probably still known

as one of the best Italian cooks in Trail, and her daughter Evelyn, daughter

Corrie Tow and an exchange student from Osaka, Japan, You Ida. I would ask the

House to welcome them.

Hunter: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today two

special people in my life: my wife Joy and my son Richard, visiting from

Calgary. Will the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. K.

Falcon: It's also a great honour of mine to introduce a couple of very

strong supporters and some small business folks from the riding of

Surrey-Cloverdale. I would like the House to make welcome Robert and Nancy

Martin.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Visiting me in the House today are some friends from the west side,

Lauren and Aaron Dinwoodie. Also visiting the House today is Jerry Lampert, the

president of the British Columbia Business Council. Would everyone please make

them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

SCHOOL (PROTECTION OF PARENT

VOLUNTEERS) AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

Hon. C.

Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled School (Protection of Parent Volunteers) Amendment Act, 2001.

Hon. C.

Clark: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. C.

Clark: This act amends the School Act to enshrine in legislation the right

of parents to volunteer in their children's schools. No one will deny that every

parent is an essential part of their children's education. This legislation

protects the right of parents to be involved in his or her child's school and

assures that this right cannot be bargained away in any collective agreement. At

the same time, the School Amendment Act makes it clear that the services

performed by volunteers will not result in the displacement of an employee.

Finally, this act also provides protection for volunteers from legal action in

the same way as is normally done for employees of the board.

Hon.

Speaker, I move that the School (Protection of Parent Volunteers) Amendment Act

be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Bill 8

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

CROWN CORPORATIONS GOVERNANCE

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Crown Corporations Governance Statutes Amendment Act, 2001.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

[ Page 246 ]

[1410]

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm pleased to introduce the Crown Corporations Governance Statutes

Amendment Act, 2001. The government intends to chart a new course with Crown

corporations to ensure that they begin to operate under modern governance

principles. With this direction in mind, Bill 14 amends the Insurance

Corporation Act to remove the requirement that the corporation includes the

minister, as well as the three-year appointment stipulation. In addition, this

bill removes

section 7, paragraph (

a) of the Hydro and Power Authority Act to

address an excessive and unworkable limitation placed on directors of the

authority.

Mr.

Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 14

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF

NURSES' DISPUTE

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, the cooling-off period for the nurses' dispute ends

this week. To the Minister of Labour: can the minister please tell British

Columbians what plans he has in place if there is no agreement? Will he be

legislating a settlement, or will he allow free collective bargaining to resume?

Hon. G.

Bruce: It will be, again, a very long and busy weekend. As you well know,

the cooling-off period ends on August 8. I'm hopeful to have in my hands, either

later today or tomorrow, the reports from both of the mediators, Stephen

Kelleher and Vince Ready. I've asked them for a report as to where the

discussions are at, where the negotiations are at, how far apart they are, the

cross-jurisdictional comparisons that are there from one jurisdiction in Canada

to another. When I get all that information, I will take a real good, hard look

at it and decide what action I should take from there.

MacPhail: As the minister is aware, there are over 5,000 nurses that are

threatening to resign if the minister chooses to legislate a settlement that

includes concessions. Again, to the Minister of Labour: does the Minister of

Labour's contemplation over the weekend include a plan of action to cope with

the crisis? And will he, at the time of his deliberations, make known his plan

to deal with the crisis of mass resignation?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Yes, it is a very serious situation. It's one more issue on our plate

that we are having to deal with as a government, from a situation that hasn't

been very properly or well managed over the past ten years. Enough

of that being said, we will be developing a plan. Obviously, as we come through

this, I will be sharing it not only with the members of this House but with all

British Columbians. There's great concern as to this issue — very serious for

every single British Columbian here in this province.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition with a further supplemental.

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, we learned late last month that the Minister for

Health Services feels that there's no place for nurses to go. Where would they

go anyway? Today we learned that Canada needs 16,491 nurses. Alberta is short

2,000 nurses. British Columbia is short 1,200 nurses. Ontario is short 8,000

nurses. Quebec is short 2,500 nurses. So I don't think that British Columbians

throughout the province will accept dithering on this matter. We know that the

Minister of Labour dithered on the matter of the transit strike. The transit

strike went on for weeks when it didn't have to, because of the minister's

dithering.

To the

Minister of Labour, or actually to anyone who has an answer. The minister

increased the stakes in this matter by refusing to give comfort to British

Columbians about his plan of action in the face of mass resignations, so we

really need to ask the minister again: what is your plan? What is your

contingency plan that you must have in place now, with it being just days away

from invoking the government's own legislation? What is your contingency

plan, if negotiations fail and if there are mass resignations? What hope is

there for patients in this province?

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, the question clearly concerns future policy. However,

the minister may answer.

[1415]

Hon. G.

Bruce: Dithering — let's talk about dithering.

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Yeah, dithering. We became government some 45 days ago. After ten

years the NDP as a government wreaked havoc on this province and put this

province in a situation where the population of British Columbia overwhelmingly

— 77 seats to two, 57 percent of the population — said: "Let's move on

to a new area. Let's move on to a point where we can once again have a province

that we can be proud of."

Dithering?

No. There is absolutely not any dithering. There is a plan, and there will be

good action taken, just like action was taken in resolving the transit

dispute, just like we're dealing with the economic fortunes of this province,

just like we got right to action when we first became government and gave every

British Columbian in the province a tax cut.

J. Kwan:

The fact is that the Minister of Labour delayed the settlement of the

transit strike by six weeks. That could have been settled when the Vince

[ Page 247 ]

Ready report was tabled on June 14, and he didn't.

Thousands of nurses say

they are now packing up and getting ready to go. Even if a fraction of that

number follow through with their resignations, it would severely compromise the

health care system in British Columbia. Patients are worried. People should be

worried. This House should be worried. To the Minister of Labour: can he please

tell patients and their families…?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. The member has the floor.

Please

continue.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister please tell the patients and their families what his

contingency plan is to ensure that patient care is taken care of if this

government triggers resignations by its legislation?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The member for Vancouver-Hastings was talking earlier in question

period about the severe nursing shortage that we're facing in Canada. I'd like

to put some numbers on the table. In 1996 this province graduated 703 nurses.

And do you know that four years later the number of nurses graduating in British

Columbia was down to 569? Guess who was Minister of Health during those years.

Guess who was the Minister of Health, who failed to provide the leadership we needed at that time to make sure that we would have an adequate number of

nurses in British Columbia today.

specifically address the question from the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant, there are contingency plans being put in place. The threat that the

British Columbia patients pay for the labour dispute that is being perpetuated

by the B.C. Nurses Union. We are putting the contingency plans in place should

that eventuality happen, because we cannot take the lives and the health of

British Columbians for granted, despite what's happening in terms of the lack of

ability of the Nurses Union to bring this particular dispute to a resolution.

I would

challenge the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant to stand up in this House

and tell us whether she condones the massive resignation of nurses in British

Columbia. Or is she going to stand up and say that she is urging these nurses to

recognize that the collective agreement being offered to them is fair and is

competitive with other jurisdictions and that we should all be working together

to encourage a resolution of this issue?

J. Kwan:

The fact is that the shortage is happening throughout the country. In

Alberta, which I know this government aspires to be just like, they're short

2,000, and that is under the Ralph Klein regime. Ontario is 8,000 nurses short.

I know the Premier wants to be just like his big brother, Mr. Harris. The fact

is that patient care needs to come first, and the minister should know that. The

cooling-off period ends next week. This government won't give a straight answer.

What is his contingency plan? Even if a fraction of the numbers of nurses

resign, what will this government do?

[1420]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please

J. Kwan:

And how will he ensure that there's patient care?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members…

J. Kwan:

You know, Mr. Speaker….

Mr.

Speaker: …so that we may hear the question.

Please put

your question.

J. Kwan:

Slavery ended many, many years ago. My question to the minister is….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members. Please, hon. members, allow the

minister to hear the question.

Please

continue.

J. Kwan:

My question to the minister is: what does he intend to do if the resignations

come through — even a fraction of them?

Mr.

Speaker: Once again, the question concerns future government policy. The

minister may answer if he so desires.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I think it's very important that all British Columbians know and

understand that this government is working very hard on this dispute. It's

important that we keep the rhetoric low and calm, as much as there are times

during question period when we'd like to have at it. The fact of the matter is

that this issue affects every single British Columbian. It is extremely

important. It behooves all of us to act in a manner that is calm, cool and

collected and to try and get this issue resolved so that patient care for people

throughout British Columbia is there, where and when they need it.

TUITION FREEZE

Chong: In one month students everywhere will be returning to classes. I

represent a constituency with

[ Page 248 ]

two post-secondary institutions: the University of Victoria and Camosun

College. I have heard from students who are concerned about access. In the New

Era document, it states that a B.C. Liberal government would support the 5

percent tuition cut and tuition freeze.

question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Will she keep that promise

and honour this election commitment?

Hon. S.

Bond: I want to assure the member and the students of this province that we

will live up to our commitment. We have enacted a regulation that will freeze

tuition fees and will also implement the 5 percent reduction in tuition fees for

this current year.

Perhaps

equally important, we will reassure post-secondary institutions that we intend

to fully fund the 5 percent reduction and freeze. That actually will give us

some assurance that we can continue to offer quality opportunities for students

in this province, unlike the previous government, which did not fully fund the

tuition freeze and the reduction.

GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF

NURSES' DISPUTE

MacPhail: Across Canada the issue has been examined of how people stay in

their jobs and what the employment law is around people remaining in their jobs.

And across Canada it has been ruled upon that an individual has a right to leave

his or her job. There is absolutely nothing that anybody can do about it,

because the laws are very free. Slavery is gone. That's why the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant referred to that. That was the issue that the Nova

Scotia and Ontario governments faced. So the issue of resignations by nurses is

one of utmost seriousness. We know that in the greater Vancouver area, the

Vancouver-Richmond health board…. If merely a fraction of the nurses exercise

their individual right to quit their job in frustration, the system will

collapse in chaos.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: We also know that nurses could go anywhere in the country and get

another job.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

MacPhail: To the Minister of Labour….

Mr.

Speaker: Order. I urge the hon. member to put her question now.

[1425]

MacPhail: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker.

To the

Minister of Labour: given that the right of nurses to resign rests with them,

what is the Minister of Labour going to do, come Tuesday? What is he going to do

to allow a resolution to the nurses' bargaining that doesn't provoke the mass

resignations that the nurses themselves are telling us they're going to do?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Once again, hon. members, it is future government policy.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'm going to ask you to join with me in establishing a level of

peace, coolness, calm and quiet, so we can deal with this very serious issue for

all of us in a reasonable and proper fashion.

MORATORIUM ON OFFSHORE

OIL AND GAS DRILLING

Hunter: Since the northern commissioner issued his report some weeks ago,

there's been a great deal of public attention paid to the future of the oil and

gas moratorium. Many of my constituents have raised questions about the

government's position on lifting the moratorium. My question is to the Minister

of Energy and Mines. Could the minister clarify the government's position on

this matter?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes. During the throne speech on July 24, the government committed

to having a scientific panel study the issues around the lifting of the

moratorium on offshore oil and gas. That was a commitment made in our New Era

document and another commitment kept. We will look at sound science and try to

look at how we can environmentally do it in an enhancing way. That's our

commitment, and that's what we will do.

[End

of question period.]

Tabling Documents

MacPhail: I seek leave to table a document listing the shortage of nurses

across Canada.

Leave

granted.

Speaker's Statement

POLICY FOR PUBLIC WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, today you will find on your desks the written policy

developed by the Speaker for public written questions. It is anticipated that

the new procedure will proceed on a trial basis during this session after

authorization by a sessional order. The policy will be made available to the

public upon request and is available to every member through my office or

through the Legislative Assembly website.

[ Page 249 ]

Motions without Notice

Hon. G.

Collins: With leave, I would like to move a motion. I guess I should ask for

leave first.

Leave

granted.

SESSIONAL ORDER FOR

PUBLIC WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that:

[Resolved that the

Legislative Assembly adopt the following sessional order:

Practice

recommendation #11 (S.O. 47, 47A)

Public

Questions

Written questions may be submitted by persons elected to head provincial or

local public bodies designated under this order and in accordance with the

guidelines established by Mr. Speaker. Questions submitted in writing to the

office of the Speaker by 4 p.m. Wednesday are eligible to be drawn on

Thursday. Five questions drawn by the Speaker which conform to the

guidelines shall be placed on the orders of the day on Monday of each week.

A question shall be printed on two consecutive weeks unless answered.

A private member may ask a qualified question of a minister during question

period. The minister may answer the question orally or in writing by filing

with the Clerk of the House. Written answers shall be published in the Votes

and Proceedings .

Questions should relate to current provincial issues and public affairs, be

timely, brief and stated without argument or opinion. The submission must

not include unparliamentary language and shall be directed to the minister

who has responsibility for the area of interest.]

Mr.

Speaker: For comments and debate on the motion, the Leader of the

Opposition.

MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly look to you for being very

creative in this area. We welcome the initiative. I note that certain political

parties have to meet a certain threshold. If certain political parties had known

that they would have had access to this chamber and to the government, perhaps

they would have attempted to meet that threshold. But certainly that will be

available in the coming elections.

I would

also say….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Please

continue.

[1430]

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, it's unbelievable how partisan this chamber can be

about absolutely every single matter, when I'm actually trying to offer some

assistance here.

Mr.

Speaker, I would ask you to consider only this: that this is what may be seen as

a tiny bit of a complex situation for the public until they become used to the

matter, and I would appreciate an opportunity to…. Well, I would ask you to

monitor and perhaps review it with the members of the House as the process

unfolds, so that we can make sure it is working in the best possible light. We

would offer any assistance that we can to you to let the public know this, as

much as is possible, as we monitor the success of this.

Mr.

Speaker: Your comments are noted and appreciated. Further comments?

Hon. G.

Collins: Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate you for what may prove to

be a very innovative change to the way parliaments work, in opening up

parliaments to the people of the province — not just through the members that

they send here once every number of years but on an ongoing basis. I think it's

a courageous move, and I'm looking forward to seeing the results of it and

perhaps making sure that British Columbians have an opportunity to provide their

questions on the floor of the House in an innovative and direct way.

In response

to the comments from the member for Vancouver-Hastings, I just want to remind

the House that this is a sessional order. It will be in place for the duration

of this session and will expire with this session. If it works, we could

certainly revive it or incorporate it in a more permanent way into the standing

orders. If it requires revision, we can do that for the next session. If it

doesn't work at all, then we'll have to go back to the drawing board and find

something else. I just want to assure members that it's an innovative chance to

try something. It's not a permanent change to the standing orders, and it is

something that I think will encourage British Columbians to get in greater

contact with their elected members on an ongoing basis.

Mr.

Speaker: The question is: an addition to the sessional orders.

Motion

approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call budget debate.

Budget Debate

(continued)

Long: It seems like a long time ago that I was here speaking. It's not often that

a member gets the opportunity to have the Speaker of the House in session when

he's speaking and, also, the Deputy Speaker at another time. So I want — as I

did congratulate the Deputy Speaker earlier — to congratulate you again for

your nomination and your election to the chair. I know you deserve it. I think

you

[ Page 250 ]

put a lot of time in here in the Legislature, and it's a pleasure to see you

there ruling over us, so to speak.

As I said

before, we're starting all over again, so everybody's got to listen. Before

people get away, I've got to bring it forward that Powell River–Sunshine Coast

is, no doubt, one of the best ridings in British Columbia. Earlier I was talking

about — because I have a new audience here — what it covered: from Port

Mellon to Oweekeno. Actually, it goes a little farther; it goes up to Namu right

on the border. There are very few people in Namu, but they're still very

valuable to me, and they mean a lot.

Another

thing I brought up earlier.... Many people here in the House talked about these

buildings and when they were built and the beauty they have. What I wanted to

bring forward is that these buildings would not exist without the riding of

Powell River–Sunshine Coast — previously, Mackenzie riding. The very

foundations are built on…. The granite rock which makes up these buildings

comes from the riding of Powell River–Sunshine Coast. It comes off of Nelson

Island right at Quarry Bay, which should be a historical site, actually. We

supplied the rock to build the buildings, and we're here to work with this

government to give B.C. back its economy.

[1435]

I'm pleased

to be one of those members who was elected back to this chamber after a ten-year

hiatus. I put in five years between 1986 and 1991. Some of the members here

today — in fact, three other members — were sitting with me at the time. Not

to put down the government of '86-91, but one of the differences I've noticed is

that the government of today, the government I'm in — the Liberal government

here in the Legislature — is more open. MLAs like myself who do not have a

cabinet job have more input into what happens in these buildings, through

committees. The cabinet listens, we have access to the cabinet ministers, and I

am really pleased with the leadership and with the cabinet and with the way we

do business in this province.

The reason

I'm going in this direction is because that's what's going to create the climate

in the future that's going to make this province good. It's when all these

people, 77 out of the 79 here, from such a diverse background in all aspects of

society can get together in a caucus and talk out and say what they want to, to

put their ideas forward. That's what we're going to gain. That knowledge is

what's going to create the government in the future, and that's what's going to

create our economy.

Some of the

things that have happened recently with the reductions in personal income tax

will generate the working man to spend his money and to work harder. The tax

reductions to business and industry are going to create a climate that creates

the jobs that create the wealth, and in turn, it will eventually — in very

short order, I hope — create the climate we want in British Columbia. We as a

government are dependent on business, on labour and on everyone out there to

make this work. I say today that I look forward to working with every one of my

constituents — be it labour or business, small business or big business — to

work together to try and create that economy which we're going to need in the

future. We must have it because our social services depend on it. We can't

survive without it.

Of course

I'm getting a little older, too, and long in the tooth, so maybe I'm going to

need some medical….

Some

Hon. Members: No, no, no.

H. Long:

No.

I'd like to

bring up another thing. Back to my riding again, in the riding of Powell

River–Sunshine Coast the forest industry is probably the dominant one. But we

also have a mining industry on Texada Island. It's probably the only mining

island on the whole coast that is predominantly…. It's not in the Islands

Trust. It depends on mining. It ships a lot of limestone down to Oregon and

different places. I don't know whether it's possible or not, but I would like to

work with our government to see if we can build on our strengths rather than our

weaknesses — build our forest industry, build our mining industry, which our

government, through the throne speech, has already said they would help with.

I think

it's important that when we look at these communities…. They already generate

wealth for our government through taxation, and I think they've got to be

recognized for what they do. So when I talk about the mining industry, I say:

how can we help the forest industry and those mills that need help so badly?

Through the programs that will come from our government, I look forward to

working with those people.

Another

issue is the ferries. B.C. Ferries are an integral part of the whole Sunshine

Coast, starting right from Langdale on up. But one of the liftoff points for the

whole coast, for the Sunshine Coast and for Powell River — I say Sunshine

Coast differently, but Powell River is part of it — is the fact that Horseshoe

Bay, now back in construction…. I say it's great. When I was reading one of

the news releases the other day, it mentioned the citizens of Horseshoe Bay and

the people of West Vancouver talking about it and their concerns, but I didn't

see the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who are totally dependent on

that bay. So I think it's important that we be remembered when these issues are

taken…when it's such a vital part of our transportation system.

[1440]

We're

probably one of the very few communities that's totally isolated. I say totally

isolated because we have our communities that look after one another, of course,

but we don't have what I would call the big centres that interchange.

Vancouver

Island is a complete centre. It has the cities and the towns that have all the

amenities they need, and Vancouver has this, but these small communities on the

coast don't have them. They have a hospital, but most of our people have to go

into Vancouver or to Vancouver Island for treatment.

[ Page 251 ]

I'm looking

forward to what we promised in our throne speech: that we will be able to get

our health care where we need it and when we need it. I have to admit that

recently the kidney dialysis machines were just started up in Powell River after

a number of years of not having them and having our patients travel into

Vancouver at a huge expense.

It was not

covered in any form by the government or even by the travel assistance program

provided by Ferries. By the time they left home to go to kidney dialysis in

Vancouver and back, it turned into an 18-hour day. It was pretty bad, so it's

good to hear that, and I'm looking forward to it in the future.

On the

ferry issue, as well, we have school children who in our towns — in Sechelt,

Gibsons, Pender Harbour and also Powell River…. We have schools. We have

interaction through the sports teams and such within our schools, but we don't

have access to any of the other major centres. To get people back and forth from

the major centres to our schools for competitions is very, very costly, even for

our teams that represent the community.

I think

it's important to remember to have those kinds of commitments, possibly through

B.C. Ferries, to look at how we can handle these schools and these teams getting

back and forth a little more economically so they can participate. Believe me,

the Sunshine Coast is a bit of an orphan. When I say a bit of an orphan, it

really doesn't belong to Vancouver Island, which we're supposed to belong to as

a unit, and it really doesn't belong to Vancouver. It sort of sits on the

central coast. Even if it's the most beautiful place to be and the best place to

go, it's still a bit of an orphan.

So I look

forward to building the economies, and that's probably one of the most important

things. If we could build our economies on the Sunshine Coast and Powell River

back up to where they were even many years ago, back when we had 2,000 people

working in our mill…. That probably will never happen, but there are new

industries wanting to come in. We've got to try and facilitate them through

taxes, reductions or whatever we have to do to bring them back into B.C., and I

look forward to that. I think our government has done a great deal already in

the short time it has been sitting, and I believe I will be working as best I

can with this government to make it happen in the future.

Finishing

up, I'd like to read just this little bit out of the throne speech, which I

think is very important, and that is the commitment that: "This is a time

of great promise for all British Columbians, led by a new government with a

strong mandate for positive change. A mandate to usher in a new era of hope,

prosperity and public service." And: "It will take a commitment to

openness, transparency and accountability." I think that will work for this

government and for this province in the future.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: It gives me pleasure to stand in the House today and speak to the

budget update. I'd first like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your

appointment and some of the changes we've already seen in the House that were

brought forward today under your tenure. I think it will be great and will make

this House work a lot better.

[1445]

I would be

remiss if I didn't begin by talking a bit about my constituency and the support

I've received in my constituency. This is my third term, third election. I was

first elected in 1991, again in 1996 and again in 2001. I was elected along with

76 other women and men to represent British Columbians in this fine institution,

and for that I'm very proud. This is a place where we come and talk about our

constituents' issues and wishes and try to resolve them in the best way we can.

I am always

humbled when I come back from where I live, in Fort St. John, to this House. In

fact, I remember clearly the first day I came here after being elected in 1991,

and it was really humbling. This time I was fortunate enough to come back, and

the Premier of the province actually chose me to be one of his ministers, the

Minister of Energy and Mines, which I'm very proud to be. That is also very

humbling.

To the

people in my constituency — and I will get on with the budget response — I

want to give thanks. I want to thank them very much for giving me the

opportunity to come here and represent them. In fact, I'm really humbled by the

number of people in my constituency that decided they should send me back here

for a third time. Seventy-three percent of the people who voted in the

constituency of Peace River North said that they wanted me, as a B.C. Liberal,

back here as their representative to bring forward a new era of hope and

prosperity in this great province.

I also

represent a constituency which is almost the largest in the province, just a

little bit behind Bulkley Valley–Stikine in size, but not much. My

constituency is the size of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and

Vancouver Island in land mass, with a little room to spare. When they decided to

make a park in my constituency, they took just less than one-third of it and

created the Muskwa-Kechika, which is the size of Nova Scotia.

So when we

talk about parks and land in this great big province of ours, we should always

remember that our parks are huge. People who don't get a chance to go out into

rural B.C. and have a look around — and I would encourage everyone to do

that…. As the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast said, we should travel

this province more and more so we are more familiar with each and every part of

it. But I would challenge him that I come from the best part of the province,

not Powell River–Sunshine Coast. The northeast is the best part of the

province. It's always nice to speak behind the person who just said that,

because they can't stand up and rebut that, hon. Speaker.

The economy

is the reason why people put us here. The economy in British Columbia has been

dismal at best. Under the leadership of the able socialists — or so-called

able socialists — we went from number one to number ten. Can you imagine? How

can anyone ever even come back to this House, sit in this House and try to be

proud of the fact that they took the

[ Page 252 ]

number one province in all of Canada from number one — economic growth,

everything — to number ten in ten years? That's every year that they took us

one step further down the way.

That's why

British Columbians said in full force on May 16 that they wanted a new

government in this province, one that would look after people's needs,

regardless of where they lived, would look after the economy, health care,

education and social services. We intend, through our New Era document,

to live up to each and every one of those promises.

Our economy

depends heavily on the forest industry. The forest industry is the engine of

growth in British Columbia. We should never forget that. That industry was

absolutely brought to its knees by the last administration. Let me tell you,

it's going to be a big job. Each and every one of us in this House knows it's

going to be a big job to bring that forest industry back to the might that it

used to have.

[1450]

Again, in

the New Era document we made a promise. We told people that we were going

to get the economy going in British Columbia, and we intend to do that.

Energy and

hydro are huge contributors to this province's well-being, both in money to the

Crown and in providing jobs. I'll talk a little bit later about energy but also

about agriculture. Agriculture in our province is huge, and we should never

forget it. Especially where I come from, on a daily basis I hear from people

about problems they're having in agriculture. We have to address some of those

issues. We have to make the agricultural Land Reserve Commission more responsive

to the area of the province. That's not been done in the past, and that's

another promise that we made in the New Era document that we intend, and,

I'm sure, intend quickly, to live up to.

In fact, we

made a number of promises that we would carry through within 90 days that we

are living up to. We will live up to that 90-day promise, as hard as we have to

work. Each and every individual here, regardless of who they are or where

they're from — other than two — is working very hard to make sure that we

have our 90-day agenda put in place.

As I stated

before, our goal is to bring British Columbia back to number one again. How did

we start that? After being sworn in on June 5, our first cabinet meeting, the

Minister of Finance put in the largest personal income tax cut that we've ever

seen.

You know, I

was here. Personal income taxes used to be lower prior to the NDP, the

socialists, being in government. Through ten years I watched their dismal

performance, standing in the House and telling people that if they made $60,000

they were wealthy and rich, and: "We're going to tax you." I can

remember then-Premier Glen Clark, who was Minister of Finance, saying those

kinds of things. You know what? They carried through with that.

They taxed

and they put in regulation. They put in legislation like you wouldn't believe,

until they absolutely choked this province. They choked taxpayers to the point

that taxpayers were actually moving out of this province faster than they were

moving in. That was something that had never happened in the province before. It

will never happen again, because our Minister of Finance and our government saw

fit to actually reduce taxes by 25 percent, not just for the wealthy but for

everyone across the board. Those that make $60,000 or less actually get a bigger

tax break than the ones that make $60,000 and up. That's leadership.

We've also

laid out very clearly in our New Era document that we intend to cut red

tape. We intend to get rid of needless legislation that actually hinders

development. If there's one thing we haven't had in British Columbia, it's

development. It's actually been a nightmare. Businesses have moved their head

offices to Calgary on a regular basis. From where I live in Fort St. John, we're

very close to the Alberta border. They have moved them almost on a daily basis

over to Grande Prairie, because it is a province that actually respects business

and the wealth that it brings.

We have to

remember — and we will; we've committed to it in our New Era document

— that we will bring back prosperity. Profit is not a dirty word as far as the

B.C. Liberals are concerned, because if business doesn't have profits and is not

here creating jobs, we will not have the wealth to be able to continue the

health care, social programs and education programs that we have. We intend to

bring this province back to number one again. We know it's going to be a hard

job, but we have started. We started with personal income tax cuts. We've now

come through with cuts for businesses, so they can actually come back to British

Columbia.

[1455]

People are

energized. When the Minister of Finance was talking about the budget update,

I'm telling you, it was so much good news I could hardly believe it. I couldn't

control myself. You know, I went home, and people were phoning me at my

constituency office and saying how happy they were. Their paycheques had

actually gone up, and they couldn't believe it. They thought the payroll people

had made a mistake. At first they weren't going to tell them, because "I

have more money to spend." Mr. Speaker, it's just a start of something that

will happen in British Columbia. It's a new era of prosperity, a new era of

entrepreneurship.

You know,

if you just stop and think about all the things British Columbia has that we

take for granted…. There are so many provinces in Canada that would just love

to have what British Columbia has.

We can

start in the southern part of the province, and we have Victoria, the capital

— a beautiful city. Many tourists come here. It's a beautiful city to live in.

I get to spend part of the time here, but I live in Fort St. John.

We have a

metropolitan city, Vancouver, where you can get almost anything you want. It is

a huge city. There are all kinds of opportunities in Vancouver for all kinds of

people to actually have good jobs, to start businesses. All we had to do was

change the government. You can feel that vibrancy in Vancouver when you go down

the street. People are actually

[ Page 253 ]

stopping to shop now, instead of walking by, because before they didn't have

that money in their pocket.

You look

around our province and think about all the other things we have. Mountains, I

mean, a tremendous amount of mountains. There are provinces in Canada that would

kill for our mountains and our scenery — beautiful, clean lakes; thousands

upon thousands of them. Some you can only access by airplane, others by road,

others by hiking.

If you look

at our natural resources, huge natural resources…. Our forest industry in this

province is huge. We intend to bring it back to that might that it used to be,

because we're going to allow people to go in and invest money, make money and

create jobs.

We have

hydroelectricity generation. Let me tell you that in the last couple of years

there are a few places, not just in Canada but in the Pacific Northwest, that

would just love to have our hydro generation. They'd just love to have it. Huge

dams on the Peace and the Columbia that provide tremendous revenue to government

— both of those dams…. They also deliver to this great province of ours very

good, stable electricity — we don't have blackouts — and it's the second

cheapest in all of North America.

Mr.

Speaker, we have huge resources of natural gas and oil — all kinds of natural

gas in the northeast, where I come from. That's where most of it is drilled from

now. To put that in perspective, we produce and ship over two billion cubic feet

daily, second-largest in all of Canada — Alberta, obviously, is ahead of us —

over two billion cubic feet a day through a whole bunch of pipelines either into

Alberta or through Alberta, Chicago or straight south to Sumas and south to

actually fuel the economy in the lower mainland. That is a huge amount of

natural gas. People tend to forget that. The oil and gas industry invests

between $2 billion and $2.6 billion every year. If that was happening in

Vancouver on a yearly basis, it would be on the front page on an almost daily

basis. But because of where we are, in the northeast, it's kind of forgotten. If

you think about that — $2.6 billion a year in investment, over two billion

cubic feet per day…. In oil we're the third largest. We have a couple of

refineries in British Columbia that are supplied by the….

[1500]

We have

every kind of agriculture, from people who grow flowers to people who grow

canola to people who grow wheat, barley, oats. Cattle, dairy, chickens — you

name it; it's here. The difficulty we have now is to try and bring some of those

head offices back to British Columbia so that those industries can continue to

prosper.

There are

so many natural resources in this province that it's hard to think about them

all. When you have that, along with an entrepreneurial workforce of men and

women who are well-educated, who want to go out there, who are excited and

energized, who want to make some money…. They want to raise their families in

a secure environment, in secure homes, and to be able to raise their

grandchildren, to be able to stay in the area where they were born so that there

can be generation after generation. That's what I'd like to see British Columbia

come back to.

Our

Premier, through our New Era document, has challenged us to do that. Each

and every one of us in this House, regardless of who we are, has been challenged

by the Premier to do this. We've been challenged, as ministers, to do a core

review of our ministries and all the Crown corporations that we represent. And I

look forward to that.

There are

always some people who say: "Well, everybody's a little bit nervous."

I guess most people are a little bit nervous when it comes to change. That's

normal. Everyone worries a little bit about change. But the Premier has not told

us just to change for the sake of change. He's asked us to change it to better

represent the people that we've been elected to represent, so that we actually

give the power back to the people and have people involved in how things are

done in government. That's what the Premier has challenged us to do.

I know that

the people who work within my ministry — and there are a multitude of great

people that work in the Ministry of Energy and Mines…. The people that work

for government — God bless their souls — do a tremendous job. All of us

should remember that those people are there doing what we direct them to do. We

shouldn't complain. We create the policy. We create the rules as a government,

as a House, as a Legislature, and they're there to carry out those rules. That's

what they've always done in the past, and that's what they'll do in the future.

And I look forward to doing that.

I want to

just touch briefly on a few other issues about pipelines. We've heard a lot

about the Alaska Highway pipeline and the Mackenzie Valley pipeline to bring gas

south from up in the frozen north. We have supported a motion put forward by the

Yukon government which said that probably, in time, both pipelines would go.

But it's

the private sector that is actually going to fund these pipelines. And it's

billions of dollars. We're not talking just a few bucks. We're talking about an

Alaska Highway pipeline that would cost between an estimated $10 billion and $12

billion. That is a huge chunk of change. The other pipeline in its entirety, if

it was built across the top and down Mackenzie Valley, would cost about the

same. Our job as government is to be out there and facilitate. Once the private

sector makes up its mind about which gas it wants to bring to market, we should

be facilitating as best we can to bring that through the province.

The reason

I'd like to bring it into British Columbia is because there's a huge opportunity

for the province now that we've lowered corporate tax. We're going to get rid of

the corporate capital tax, thank goodness, and we've got our personal income

taxes in line. We're going to get our regulations in line. We can actually have

an industry in the northeast that strips the gas, liquids. It's a huge

opportunity for British Columbia. It creates a huge number of jobs —

well-paying jobs, high-tech, all those kinds of things that we've always just

left for Alberta to do. Let me tell you, we have a

[ Page 254 ]

challenge in front of us. We can have that industry in British Columbia.

[1505]

We also

looked very closely at hydro generation, and we committed, in our New Era

document, to look closely at wind, thermal, solar, biomass and fuel-cell

technology. That will be part of what B.C. Hydro's core review is about: to look

at those alternative ways of generating electricity so that we don't always

depend so much on actually damming rivers, which is almost a thing of the past,

or burning natural gas to generate hydro. There are other ways to do it,

although they're a bit more expensive. I think they are things that we have to

start looking forward to in the province.

To do that,

we're going to bring on IPPs, independent power producers — the private

sector. They're going to come in. The days of building fast ferries and those

kind of things are long gone. We're going to start allowing the private sector

to be able to grow our economy. What we need is to grow this economy to what it

used to be: number one in all of Canada. That's going to take a while, but we

intend to get there.

My time is

almost gone, and there are so many other people who want to stand up and talk

about this great province of British Columbia and all the great things that the

B.C. Liberal government is intending and planning to do, has promised to do —

a new era of prosperity in this province, one that provides high-paying jobs for

British Columbians, where prosperity is attainable, the economy is strong and

diverse, and there is hope for the future for everyone.

Mr.

Speaker: The debate on the economic and fiscal update continues with the

hon. Attorney General.

Hon. G.

Plant: There are few things more intimidating in life than standing in this

chamber following the member for Peace River North, the Minister for Energy and

Mines, who has a marvellous way of raising the level of excitement in any room.

For me,

this marks really the first occasion on which I've had the opportunity to rise

and make more extended remarks. It's my first speech in the new parliament, and

there are some traditions that go along with that which are important, the first

of which is to acknowledge, as I am delighted to do, your presence in the chair,

Mr. Speaker, and to say that I look forward to your wise and careful

deliberations. I know that you bring to the position you hold a wonderful set of

qualifications, experience and attributes, so good luck in what is often a

difficult job.

I think it

may well be, for that chair in which you sit, a nearly unique experience of

sitting in and presiding over a legislature where there is such a relative

disproportion of members from different parties. You'll have a particular burden

in making sure that all voices are heard. It was my experience as a member of

opposition in this chamber for five years that Speakers gave the opposition

members, those who are not members of government, the opportunity to make their

voices heard. It's important that they have those voices here in this chamber.

It's our job as legislators to listen to all voices. I'm sure you'll have lots

of opportunity to hear or watch me regret what I've just said in the weeks and

months and years ahead, but I wish you well.

[1510]

The second

thing I want to do — and it's part of the tradition of these remarks — is

express my gratitude to the voters of Richmond-Steveston, the constituency that

I represent. I want, I guess, to thank everybody who voted. I know that public

confidence in the institutions of government in British Columbia has been sorely

tested over the years. One of the great challenges that we face as a government

is how to restore public confidence in the institutions of the provincial

government. Time will be the judge of our success or failure in achieving that

goal.

For many of

my constituents, many of the people I represent, the people who did get out to

vote, I know they did so with a mixture of feelings. I heard people on their

doorsteps express sometimes something close to despair about their view of how

government worked in British Columbia. I think, at times, I was at least as

frustrated as they have been over the last five years.

I sometimes

think that I experienced sort of a perverse win, if you will, in 1996, when the

majority of the voters in the Richmond-Steveston constituency voted for me and

for the party I represented and for the vision that we had for government —

but, of course, had to live through five years of a different kind of

government. While I had a marvellous opportunity as an opposition MLA to see

something about how government works, and you learn something about how this

chamber works, I never lost track of the fact that for the majority of my

constituents the last five years were a dismal experience of government failing

to discharge even the most basic obligations of trust, credibility and

integrity.

Here we are

five years later. I have to say that it's more than a daunting challenge to look

at the prospect of restoring the economy of the province, which is the road map

that the Minister of Finance laid out in his remarks a few days ago. But I

believe strongly that we will not as government — we cannot as a society —

deliver the public services that the public is entitled to expect, which are

part of our shared sense of identity about who we are as British Columbians and

Canadians, if we do not put as our first priority the placing into effect of

the basic rules and processes needed to ensure that the economy of a province

like British Columbia can prosper. If we don't have a prosperous economy, then

nothing of what government seeks to do is possible. I think it's probably

entirely appropriate that what I want to say today is said in the context of a

response to a message about how we can restore the prosperity that British

Columbians are entitled to.

I heard

lots of things on the doorsteps of Richmond-Steveston in the four weeks that I

had the pleasure of knocking on doors. I heard lots of things in living rooms,

where people were kind enough to open their homes for tea parties and coffee

parties. I heard

[ Page 255 ]

things in high school gyms at public debates. I heard people express a

diverse set of views and visions for how they think we as government should

operate and how they want their province to fulfil its potential.

It is the

overwhelming view of the people who make up the constituency of

Richmond-Steveston that it starts with the economy. It starts with ensuring that

people who have ideas and energy and resources are encouraged to expend their

resources, are encouraged to invest their money and are encouraged to develop

their ideas to their fullest potential. If we as government can put in place a

platform that allows the citizens to take hold of the opportunities they can

create for themselves, there really is no limit to what we can do as citizens to

build a prosperous society in British Columbia.

[1515]

With that

as the context, I look, as I must, at the particular burdens and marvellous

opportunities that I have been given because I have been asked to serve as the

Attorney General of British Columbia and as the Minister Responsible for Treaty

Negotiations.

I want to

speak for a little while here this afternoon about some of the things that

government has done through my agency, if you will, over the last few weeks and

some of the plans that I have, and that government has, over the next few weeks

and months and years to come to try to live up to the new-era platform

commitments that speak to questions of public safety, speak to questions of

access to justice, speak to questions of our basic entitlement to be treated as

equal citizens and speak to some of the more specific challenges that face the

justice system and the treaty process in British Columbia.

Both sides

of my responsibilities, both as Attorney General and Minister Responsible for

Treaty Negotiations, are, I'm sure, equally important. It is, I think,

interesting that the Premier has sought to fuse responsibility for treaty

negotiations into the Ministry of Attorney General. I say that because one of

the things that I think is less well understood among the public than it ought

to be is that the treaty process in British Columbia, which has roots in our

deep sense of the historical injustices that have afflicted aboriginal people in

British Columbia and in our deep sense of recognition of the need to ensure that

aboriginal people today become full participants in a vibrant and healthy

economy with access to the best social services…. All of that is a really

important part of the treaty process in British Columbia.

But an

equally important part of the treaty process is the fact that aboriginal people

in British Columbia have constitutionally protected aboriginal rights and title.

Those rights and title are recognized and affirmed in

section 35 of the

Constitution Act of 1982. It is that constitutional foundation that is as

important a reason to make treaties as the social and economic and historical

factors that I talked about a minute ago.

The reason

why it's important is this: what we know is that aboriginal rights and title are

constitutionally protected, but we don't know very much about who has what

rights or what title and where that title or those rights exist. We have a

framework of principles given to us by the courts for determining when rights

and title would come into existence or be found to be in existence, but we don't

have a land title office registry of the parcels, if you will, of aboriginal

title property in British Columbia. And we don't have a complete itemization of

the wildlife harvesting or fish harvesting rights or other rights that

aboriginal people in British Columbia enjoy.

Because we

have this very certain foundation of principle recognized in the constitution

but way less certainty around knowing who has what rights and where, there is, I

think, a legitimate — more than legitimate, an urgent — need to find a way

to achieve some resolution of the uncertainty that's created by that quandary.

The pathway to certainty that the courts have encouraged governments to follow

is negotiated resolution of these issues. In British Columbia, for eight years

the negotiation process has taken place, with the exception of Nisga'a, largely

under the auspices of the B.C. Treaty Commission process.

[1520]

Treaty-making

then becomes a vehicle for the government to achieve the certainty that all of

us as British Columbians need to make and plan our lives, to make economic

decisions, to make land use decisions, to make decisions about our communities.

We need that certainty, and we don't have enough of it yet. While aboriginal

people have rights and title in the general sense, we don't know very much about

who has what rights and title where.

To come

back to the point that I started with a minute ago, those are legal questions as

much as they are social questions, economic questions or moral questions. I

think it is appropriate that we fuse those issues into a ministry, as the

Premier has done, that is both the Attorney General ministry and the Ministry

Responsible for Treaty Negotiations. It's a big challenge, but I think it's a

legitimate way of organizing government.

Let me

speak for a minute or two about some of the things that the Ministry of Attorney

General and I, as Attorney General, have done over the last few weeks and hope

to do over the next few weeks and months that don't concern the treaty process

or aboriginal issues.

Five or six

years ago the NDP imposed upon British Columbia a photo radar program that may

have had, in its original inception, some potential to be a program that could

have made our streets safer. History, I suppose, will be the judge of that, but

history has already passed a verdict on whether or not the way in which the NDP

gave us photo radar was good public policy. The answer to that, I am convinced

and have been convinced for several years, is no. Photo radar became a failed

public safety program.

It became a

failed public safety program for a number of reasons. First, I don't think it

was ever laid out to work. That is, it never got set up or was administered in a

way that gave public safety primacy of objective. Instead, it was set up to work

as a revenue-generating device for government. The people knew

[ Page 256 ]

that. From the day it started, they saw through the program and recognized

that the government that introduced it was more interested in revenue generation

than it was interested in public safety.

From that

moment on, I think that public confidence in photo radar was irreparably

poisoned — that photo radar was never going to enjoy public confidence as a

public safety tool. So what happened over the months and years of the

administration of the program was more or less inevitable.

Mr.

Speaker, you will remember some of the things that happened. We discovered that

government spent $400,000 on an instruction manual for the photo radar cameras

that told the operators profound things like: "Don't point the camera at

the sky." We learned that when the government tendered the original

project, it didn't follow basic tendering guidelines, and so the capital startup

costs for the program were twice as expensive as they ought to have been.

We learned

that the government that said it would only install and deploy photo radar

cameras on the basis of criteria of fairness would dismiss and throw out those

criteria as soon as it became convenient or politically expedient to do so.

Municipalities, I think, were in some cases the unfortunate pawns of provincial

political objectives that, as I said, had nothing to do with traffic safety.

But more

fundamentally, when the program had been up and running for three or four years,

I think the work that was done — including, most importantly, the work done by

the provincial government itself when it commissioned a traffic safety

discussion paper — made it clear that photo radar was not improving the

driving habits of British Columbians. We had spent as much as $100 million on a

program that was supposed to make our streets safer, and it wasn't working.

[1525]

That's the

kind of program that governments have to put an end to. When programs don't

work, when programs don't serve the objectives that they ought to serve, it's up

to us as government to put those programs and the taxpayers who pay for them out

of their misery. We put photo radar out of its misery to begin the process of

restoring public confidence in the work the police can do to keep our streets

safe. That work continues to be a priority for government. It's a priority for

my colleague the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, and it's

certainly an issue that continues to concern me. We cancelled photo radar in

order to begin the process of repairing public confidence in the larger project

of making our streets safer.

In the

weeks to come I expect there will be legislation introduced that will complete

the project that was announced earlier, when we made the regulatory changes that

put an end to the program. Those decisions have fiscal impacts. Their fiscal

impacts have been factored into the fiscal and economic update which I am

speaking of. Because they are ultimately matters that the taxpayers have to pay

for, I think it's appropriate to speak about them in the context of the fiscal

and economic update.

I want to

speak for a moment about another project that was not a new-era commitment but

really something that I have talked about as justice critic for a couple of

years. That is to look at our system of administrative justice as it has

developed over the years and to ask questions about whether or not, as a system,

the range of administrative tribunals and agencies that exist across government

are working for British Columbians. Last week I announced the commencement of an

administrative justice project that will, over the course of the next year, look

at as many as 60 different administrative agencies across government to make

sure that they're serving the public interest.

Those

agencies include the Expropriation Compensation Board and the tribunals that are

available in the B.C. Benefits process; they include the Human Rights Tribunal

and the Human Rights Commission; they include the Workers Compensation Board and

the Labour Relations Board. The list goes on.

What has

happened is that they have been put into place over the course of half a century

or more — the Workers Compensation Board, a century. They've been created on a

one-by-one basis to respond to particular public policy problems or challenges

that have arisen. The government of the day has thought that the way to deal

with that problem is to create an agency, perhaps to create a program of

benefits or entitlements, and then to ensure that there is a system of

adjudication in place that can determine how best to allocate those rights and

benefits.

What has

not happened in British Columbia, so far as I am aware, is that government

has taken a step back from this sort of ad hoc collection of agencies and said:

"Let's look at this entire group of government bodies and look at them for

the first time as a system, rather than as simply individual agencies." I

think that the administrative justice project offers a wonderful opportunity to

take that step back and say….

All right,

we have this thing called administrative justice. What it is, is a set of

tribunals that exist to determine rights and obligations for ordinary citizens

of British Columbia on a day-to-day basis in a way that has a huge impact on

people's lives. It affects people who are claiming disability benefits, people

who are landlords and who are tenants, people who are seeking certification so

that they can bargain collectively under the Labour Relations Code, people who

feel that their holiday pay was unjustly denied them, people who feel that they

have been unjustly or unfairly treated in their claim for workers compensation

benefits.

[1530]

All of

these issues, which involve legal rights and responsibilities, are not

adjudicated in the courts, in the first instance, but are instead adjudicated in

these administrative tribunals. For a huge number of British Columbians,

administrative tribunals become like the point of entry, not just the first-step

point of entry but, in some cases, the only point of entry to the justice

[ Page 257 ]

system. It's the only part of the justice system that many British Columbians

experience on a day-to-day basis.

So it's

really important that that part of our justice system function in a way which is

fair, efficient, affordable, principled, based on sound policy and avoids

unnecessary duplication, which is easy to understand — all the sorts of things

that we're entitled to ask of the branch of government's business which is done

through administrative agencies.

Over the

course of the next year in this administrative justice project we're going to

look at those issues across the range of tribunals and agencies in British

Columbia. I hope we will come back sometime next summer with a set of

recommendations for how we can improve access to justice in British Columbia,

create a sense of common values and principles across the system of

administrative justice and ensure that taxpayers are getting value for their

money when these agencies do their work.

I can tell

you that it's probably a project that is not likely to rear its head above the

radar screen very often. But I think it's important work, and it has the

potential, if done right and implemented appropriately, to make a significant

change in the way the people of British Columbia experience justice. So I'm kind

of excited about that.

There's

lots else happening. There are new-era commitments that concern the pay equity

task force that will be talked about in the next few weeks. We've got the

tobacco litigation up and running, because we think it is good public policy to

hold the tobacco manufacturers and distributors in British Columbia to account

for the damage they have done.

Although

it's not in the New Era document, we think it's time that we expose to

public viewing the vast amount of work done by lobbyists who seek to influence

government to change its policies. There's really not much we need to do to

enhance transparency except make sure that people have a chance to see that this

work is being done. In the next few weeks I hope to be able to announce an

initiative further to that which was discussed in the throne speech that will

create a registry, open to the public, so they'll be able to see who it is

that lobbies government for pay and, in general terms, the work they're doing

and who they're talking to. I think there are a lot of good things to be said

for the work of lobbyists, but the public interest, in my view, requires that

the public see a bit more of that work than has traditionally been the case.

[1535]

There's

lots of work happening on the treaty negotiations office side of my ministry

responsibilities. First and foremost is the planning being done to ensure that

in the next few weeks, government will be in the position to introduce a motion

that will empower a select committee of the Legislature to undertake the

consultation process necessary to draft the questions which we will then put to

the voters of British Columbia in a one-time provincewide referendum that will

give the government of British Columbia the principled mandate it needs to

negotiate treaties. We believe — and I believe — that the referendum is a

tool for building bridges, and it can be a tool for reinvigorating public

confidence in the treaty process. I encourage all those who care about resolving

the unresolved issues that exist between the first nations of British Columbia

and the federal and provincial governments to participate in that referendum

process, to make it work, to help make sure it achieves the goals we set for it,

to make it a process that brings people together rather than divides them.

I am

confident we have the tools and resources here in this assembly to make sure

that happens, and I look forward to it happening in the weeks and months to

come. We have not waited. We have told the treaty negotiators to get back to

work. They're doing so in a way that allows them to make meaningful progress at

the treaty tables without in any way undermining the larger purposes encompassed

by our referendum project.

We've

restarted quarterly meetings with the principals in the treaty process. We've

met with the leading aboriginal groups in British Columbia, and we will continue

to do that. The Premier has been at those meetings. He'll continue to be at

those meetings. We want to assure first nations people and all British

Columbians that we're committed to a treaty process that's fair, that's

affordable and that will lead to reconciliation among first nations and

non-aboriginal people in British Columbia, a reconciliation that is 130 years

overdue in the province.

Those who

have heard me talk over the last five years know that the problem is usually not

to get me started but rather to make me stop. It's because there's so much good

to say about the good we can do in the next little while that I feel I've only

just begun to outline some of the exciting opportunities we face and the

humbling challenges we also face.

I am proud

to have the chance to represent my constituents, to be their voice here in this

assembly. I am honoured to be a member of this wonderful caucus of B.C.

Liberals, and I look forward to working hard over the next four years to do what

I can in restoring British Columbia to the place it is entitled to, a place

first among equals in Canada.

Mr.

Speaker: Continuing with the response to the Economic and Fiscal Update,

the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan:

I stand here, very privileged and honoured to represent the people of

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, to respond to the Liberal budget.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

First of

all, let me just say that I wish the government well. I hope that their projections

do come to fruition, particularly their projection of 3.8 percent growth, and

that British Columbians will not be hurt if those projections do not come to

fruition. When I looked at the budget, I thought that during the election

campaign the Liberals had gone out and campaigned

[ Page 258 ]

on a balanced approach, or in any event had said to the public they would go

out and bring in a balanced approach to government.

When I look

at the budget that's been presented, I do not actually see a balanced budget in

any way. In fact, I see a very one-sided and very extreme budget. It has brought

in the second-largest deficit in the history of British Columbia. It favours the

wealthy and big business with huge tax cuts. It hurts working families, I

believe, and low-income people — people who are the majority of

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant; people who depend on government for social programs,

amongst other things; people who depend on government for health care, education

and the like.

Of course,

with the signs in the global economy and the turbulence that Japan and the

United States are faced with, B.C. indeed needs a balanced approach that would

encourage growth, protect programs and protect the interests of all British

Columbians. Whether or not this budget will actually do that…. As I mentioned,

I wish the government well. However, I have a lot of concerns for my

constituents in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

[1540]

Just for

the record, I know the members opposite are fond of saying that the NDP had left

them a poor record in terms of the economy. But just for the record — because

these are the facts, and they cannot be disputed — the economy that had

generated the fastest employment growth of any Canadian province since 1991 is

what the Liberals have inherited from the NDP. It has also inherited the highest

wages of any Canadian province. It has inherited the highest minimum wage of any

Canadian province. It has inherited the lowest unemployment rate in the last 20

years.

Under the

NDP, it had built a school every 19 days since 1991. It had the fastest small

business growth of any Canadian province. And it actually had the second-lowest

debt per person of any Canadian province as well. Hon. Speaker, these are the

facts that I want to put on the record. I know that the members from the

government side would like to portray it to be different, but these are the

facts that cannot be disputed.

You know,

what's really interesting, of course, is to look back at the words of some of

the members in the House, particularly the Minister of Finance in terms of what

he said previously about deficits. Actually, this budget brought in the

second-largest deficit in the history of British Columbia. But prior to the

first budget he brought in, these were his words, back in March 28, 2000:

"Those are the kinds of choices this government has made over the last

number of years, and British Columbians — you have to understand — are very

upset when they see a budget that's going to increase the deficit by well over

another billion dollars. The deficit for this year will be well over a billion

dollars." This is a quote from the current Minister of Finance, then the

critic of the Minister of Finance, on March 28, 2000.

Well, what

have we got in this year's budget? A deficit of $1.5 billion from the Minister

of Finance, who said back then that bringing in a deficit is a bad thing. Now,

let's just see what else he said. He also said: "What it requires is a

little bit of discipline. They could have come much closer to balancing the

budget last year just by not spending all the money, not by making a huge amount

of cuts but just by not spending all the new money. There are huge opportunities

here for the government to make progress on its deficit and start paying down

its debt. But they've missed every single opportunity that's come along."

This is a

quote from the Minister of Finance, who brought in not only the second-largest

deficit in the history of British Columbia but who also actually increased the

debt as well. He had said that he was not going to do that and that he didn't

agree with it. Lo and behold, the first thing he does when he's in government as

the Minister of Finance is contradict his very own words — not words from

somebody else but his own words that I quote from Hansard back in the

year 2000.

I go on to

actually look back a couple of more years, to March of 1998, in response to

another budget. This is again from the Minister of Finance. He says: "I

think the members opposite should pay attention to this one. Let's start with

the principles which the people of Alberta expect their government to follow:

'Remain fiscally responsible. Don't ever run a deficit again…'" These are

the words of the current Minister of Finance. The current Minister of Finance

says: "Don't ever run a deficit." What does he do? He brings in the

second-largest deficit in the history of British Columbia.

Hon.

Speaker, I raise these points because I think it is important. On the one hand,

the member could say that when they were not in government, deficits were a very

bad thing and that it should never, ever happen. But once the member is in

government, well, what does he do? He brings in the second-largest deficit ever

in the history of British Columbia. There is only just a tiny bit of

contradiction, I would say, in the language and in the information that the

member had brought forward back in 1998-99 and the year 2000. And now for the

current year, the year 2001, the minister says: "Oh well, deficit — it

doesn't matter. Guess what. We're going to bring in the second-largest deficit

ever in the history of British Columbia — $1.5 billion."

[1545]

You know,

hon. Speaker, during the election campaign the Liberal Party also said that they

would expect that big tax cuts would recover themselves. It would stimulate the

economy, and they would be able to recover the losses through activities in the

economy.

Well, not

only do they project this year that they're not expecting that to happen, but in

fact the people from the business community project otherwise. I quote the

Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, who hired Stokes Economic

Consulting to undertake a study of selected tax reductions. Their study for

January 2000 actually concluded that 10 percent to 20 percent of the direct

revenue loss resulting from tax cuts could potentially be recovered, but the

majority cannot. These are actually not my projections, not my

[ Page 259 ]

own study, but are rather from the Canadian Institute of Chartered

Accountants.

Another

group has actually made a similar projection. Even the B.C. Business Council

does not believe that the tax cuts could generate enough increases in direct

revenue to fully offset the direct revenue loss. If it turns out that the $1.5

billion in tax cuts already made don't pay for themselves, will this Liberal

government go ahead with the extreme business tax cuts announced in this budget?

Or will they actually retract that and say: "Hey, you know what? We were

wrong. Those tax cuts did not stimulate the economy, and because we don't want

to cut programs, we will actually take back the tax cuts and ask for the big

corporations to fork back the moneys that they took from the tax cuts"?

The

members, I know, are very proud of their tax cuts, and I look at the tax cuts in

terms of their distribution. In terms of distribution, if you want to talk about

fairness, if you want to talk about progressive tax policies, let's support the

people who need it the most, the people who are the lowest income, the middle

income. Where are they at? Well, look at the individual taxes. If you make

$20,000 or less, your tax cut would be to the tune of $110. That's the average

income of the people in my riding. We have the poorest people living in

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, the poorest community in all of Canada. Oh yes,

their tax break would be about $110. That would be the benefit.

But look at

this. To their friends, to their corporate donors, to their backers, to the

people who supported them during the election — the people who make, let's

say, $200,000…. What would their benefit be? Oh, the tax cut would actually

give them 40 times more than the poorest of the poor in the country. That's

$4,540. That would be their tax break. That is how much they will get.

So in other

words, in this new era, if you're rich you will get richer. There is no doubt

about it. This government will make sure that happens. But you know what? If

you're poor and you live in a low-income area, you will be the last to benefit;

and if you do benefit, it will be the least amount in which you'll benefit. That

is what this new era stands for.

Talk about

forthrightness. During the election campaign the Liberals were actually very

silent, because when asked the question of how they were going to balance the

budget, how they were going to make sure that services were being provided with

this big, dramatic tax cut…. You know what? They said that no service cuts

would be made and that the tax cuts would actually just pay for themselves. They

kept on saying that in spite of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants,

in spite of the B.C. Business Council, who have verified the fact that the tax

cuts would not pay for themselves.

I look back

at some of the quotes from the Minister of Education. Here's what she said on

CBC:

"There

are a whole number of different issues that we'll not be putting front and

centre in our campaign platform in this election. There's no question about it.

For example, in the last election we said that our first tax-cutting priority

would be to get rid of the corporate capital tax. This time we're going to say:

'No. We're going to put individuals first, and then our first tax-cutting

priority is going to be a major, dramatic tax cut for individuals.'

"So

it's going to be a different focus for our platform this time, and I think that

it would be arrogant of us to walk into this election and say that we're just

going to promise all the same old things we promised last time when we were

unsuccessful in the last election."

[1550]

This is a

quote from CBC radio, January 24, 2001, from the Minister of Education. During

this election campaign she said: "We're not going to do corporate tax cuts;

we're not going to talk about what we said we were going to do in the last

election. We're going to become completely different."

The only

difference is this: she did not tell the people during the election what the

Liberal government intended to do. They just quietly went and did it after the

election. This is what we see in this economic and fiscal update and in the

budget. Who were the biggest benefactors in terms of handouts from governments?

Big corporations — millions and millions of dollars for the big corporations.

They said

during the election: "But that is not high in our priorities. That's not

what we're going to do." That's what the Minister of Education said. You

know what? She wasn't forthright with the people of British Columbia, because

the first thing they did in their budget was bring in big corporate tax cuts for

their big donors and their big backers. That is the new era of the B.C.

Liberals.

The theory

from the Liberals, of course, is that the tax cuts will pay for themselves, that

the economy will regenerate itself. But all you have to do is look across the

border. In the United States, Texas is running short of money as a result of the

extreme tax cuts that then Governor George Bush — the current President of the

United States — introduced during his last year as Governor. Just over a year

ago George Bush pushed through $1.85 billion of tax cuts at the same time that

the state's budget projected a $6.4 billion surplus. Yet the latest Texas budget

forecast shows that Texas expects a $700 million deficit on a total budget of

$101.9 billion this year. Look across the border. You know that their theory

didn't pan out for the United States.

You don't

even have to look that far, to the United States. You can just look to the big

brothers in Ontario and Alberta and see what's happening there. Look at Ronald

Reagan's old theory, the trends of big tax cuts, the trickle-down theory. Have

they come back to pay off? No, they have not, because the fact of the matter is

that the theory doesn't work. It doesn't work.

But I do

wish this government well, because if their theory doesn't work, you know who's

going to be hurt? British Columbians.

They say

that this budget is great; it's wonderful. The corporations are taking home big

wads of money. They're not telling British Columbians, though, what they have

taken out of this budget in terms of what's

[ Page 260 ]

not being funded. Let's just go through a list of what they haven't funded.

Yes, labour

market programs in the Ministry of Human Resources — $7.5 million…. Those

are programs that target young people to try to get them off income assistance

and move them back into the workforce. Well, the new government simply thinks

that cutting $7.5 million….

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

The Ministry of Human Resources is cutting $7.5 million out of employment

programs for young people who are trying to make a transition from income

assistance to work.

The members

are shouting; they're heckling. They say: "Oh no, there are no program

cuts."

If you look

at the fine print of the program, you actually do see the program cuts, and

British Columbians will be hurt by that. They cut $7.5 million out of the

Ministry of Human Resources. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries had

$1.6 million cut. It will eliminate the Buy B.C. program, the program that

promotes local businesses in the agriculture industry, and also the B.C. Sharing

program. That's not only hurting the poorest of the poor, the food banks, the

people who actually utilize the dollars that they get from the B.C. Sharing

program to sustain them throughout the year.... That will now be lost as a result

of this new budget, this new era under the NDP government.

[1555]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Sorry, the new era is that of the B.C. Liberal government. The old

era was the NDP.

J. Kwan:

Oh yes, of course, that's right — under the new era of the Liberal government.

I must have been mistaken, because the NDP would not just give the richest of

the rich money and more tax breaks at the expense of the poorest of the poor. If

we can afford to give more tax breaks….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, members.

J. Kwan:

If we were able to give a tax break, we would actually give it to the poorest of

the poor, the people who only benefit $110 from this Liberal government versus

the people who make $200,000, who benefit over $4,500. Of course we would not

make such a mistake, because we would not go down that road.

I look at

other programs that this government has cut. The Ministry of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services — you know, the 47 percent or so that this

government just wants to cast aside…. They have cut $23 million out of their

programs — $23 million supporting cooperatives, supporting volunteers,

supporting child care, which….

I know the

government thinks child care is just for people to play tennis, for tennis moms.

But you know what? Where I come from and where my colleague the MLA for

Vancouver-Hastings comes from, moms work too. They utilize child care to be

supportive for their family, to get out into the workforce, not to go play

tennis. That's not their priority, and I know that's what this government thinks

— that child care is somehow for tennis moms. The reality is different. The

reality is different for different people with different income brackets.

I look at

other programs in terms of cuts in this budget. The Ministry of Competition,

Science and Enterprise — reductions of $1.2 million. They say this government

supports the economy. They say that they support the environment, the green

initiatives, sustainable economy for the community. Well, what did they do in

this budget? They have cut the green economy secretariat by $4.9 million. The

entire secretariat was set up to make sure that there are opportunities to

develop the economy in a sustainable area. This government just immediately cast

it aside. The sustainability commissioner — gone, disappeared.

I look at

the issue around global warming, which everybody across the country, across the

world, is very concerned about — with the exception, of course, of George

Bush, the President of the United States; Ralph Klein, the Premier of Alberta;

and of course Mike Harris, the Premier of Ontario. The global climate change

initiative — $4.1 million has been eliminated from that in this budget by the

Liberal government. And they say that they want to build the economy.

Well, the

way to build the economy should be to focus on sustainable economies, in the

green economy, and they eliminated the green initiatives that would have

sustained and developed our economy in those areas. They just said no to trying

to come up with programs, initiatives, that would protect the climate, reduce

pollution in the air and the like, because that is the first thing to go.

Not only

that. Eliminating the programs is not enough. This government actually wants to

go the other way, moving forward with offshore oil and gas drilling that would

be very detrimental to the environment, moving forward in exploration in the

mining industry, and the like. That is the direction they want to go, because

with this government the environment takes the back seat. It is not their

priority.

Women,

issues of child care, pay equity take a back seat. It is not their priority.

Low-income

people, housing programs…. We had the best housing program in the history of

Canada, actually. In 1993 the federal government had pulled out of housing

programs. British Columbia and Quebec were the only provinces which were

maintaining a comprehensive housing program. We built more housing in the last

ten years for people who need safe and affordable housing. And you know, this

government has made no commitments whatsoever to ensure that affordable housing

is kept intact in this budget.

[ Page 261 ]

[1600]

Who is

going to be hurt? No, I know it's not a big deal for the members who are sitting

in this House on the government side, because the people who make $200,000 would

not be concerned about that. They'll get a tax break — you know, $4,540. You

know who will be hurt? The people who make less than $20,000 a year, the people

who make less than $30,000 a year — people who are just struggling to survive

on a day-by-day basis. People who depend on affordable housing, the seniors, the

families, the single moms — they are the people who will be hurt. The young

people who are having a hard time finding housing out there will not get support

from this government. They will not get support from this government because

they're not on their priority list, because they were not the people on their

donors list.

If you look

at the donors list, from the oil and gas industry alone, from 1991 to 1996, you

know how much they donated to the Liberal Party? My God, it was close to

$200,000. Is it any wonder that their first priority is to fast-track offshore

oil and gas drilling and make sure that the mining industry, exploration and all

those things take place regardless of what it might do to our environment? That

is where this government is at. You know why? They were backed by these big

corporate companies and donors.

It is very

dismaying. As we embark on this so-called new era, I will wait to see what will

happen. I know that with the core review…. I hope this government is not going

to use this as a euphemism for cutting more programs. They have hidden it in the

document so that perhaps nobody would notice what public programs they have cut,

but I hope that the core review is not a euphemism for cutting more programs and

therefore creating more hardship in the community and for British Columbians.

We'll wait to see what they're going to do with the core review and whether or

not it does become a euphemism for more cuts in programs.

I know that

they looked to Mike Harris and Ralph Klein for advice. I know in the headlines

today the Premier east of us is recommending that you should cut fast and deep

and do it right now, immediately. I hope the Premier does not take that advice,

because Ontario has never recovered from those deep cuts, and people are hurting

out there. I was just out in Toronto, and I saw the number of homeless people in

the city. I hope British Columbia does not become like that, but what are the

chances of that? Well, I have a lot of concerns, because I think this government

is going to move forward with big cuts, deep cuts that would hurt British

Columbians.

Hon.

Speaker, we have a nursing crisis looming. We have potentially 5,000 nurses

poised to resign. For a fraction of the tax cuts that this government gave to

their corporate backers, they could have made sure that does not happen — that

they do not provoke the nurses to move to other provinces, to move away from

British Columbia or simply resign. This government had that choice, and they

could have done that, but they refused to do so. At least to date, they have

refused to do so.

Instead of

making sure that the health care system was protected and patient care was

provided for, making sure that these issues were addressed…. They could have

addressed it in the budget. For a fraction of the amount of the corporate tax

breaks that they gave to their donors and backers, they could have ensured that

the health care system was taken care of. They could have ensured that patient

care was first on their priorities and that the nurses would not contemplate the

idea of leaving British Columbia.

Instead of

going down that road, this government said: "No, I don't think you're going

to leave." The Minister of Health Services actually said: "Well, I

think you're bluffing." Therefore, he put the health care system at risk,

the patients and families of British Columbians, just because he said:

"Well, I don't think it'll happen."

[1605]

But if even

a fraction of the nurses who said that they would resign materializes, it will

paralyze our health care system. For the Vancouver-Richmond health board in my

own region, I know that even if a couple hundred nurses resigned, it would hurt

our health care system. It would paralyze the health care system for the

Richmond and Vancouver region. I know that in the northern communities in

British Columbia it would even be a greater threat. Would this government stop?

I would urge this government to stop and pause and reflect on their actions and

to make sure that they do not provoke the nurses to leave the province, that they

recontemplate their budget to make sure that nurses are retained in this

province and attracted to this province and not driven away by their own

legislation and their own actions.

I'd like to

summarize my comments. This government has taken on a theory, the trickle-down

theory of economics, that says that somehow big tax cuts will generate enough

revenue back into the economy, irrespective of the fact that when you look at

the United States, it hasn't materialized. When you look at other jurisdictions,

you know that it hasn't materialized. Even the Institute of Chartered

Accountants has said that won't materialize. In spite of that, they're going to

gamble and take those risks at the expense of British Columbians.

They say

that they really care about the lowest-income people. When I look at the

comparison in terms of the tax breaks, who will benefit the most? I see the

people with the highest income will benefit the most. If you make less than

$20,000, your tax break is $110; $30,000 is $201; $40,000 — perhaps that's the

average income — you'll benefit $308 versus $200,000 income earners, who will

benefit $4,500-plus. That is the difference in terms of where they stand.

They say

they'll make sure that people will be taken care of in the area of housing, yet

I see nothing in their budget ensuring that housing is indeed there. I'm even

wondering about the 600 units that were formerly committed under the NDP,

whether or not they will actually commit to those. I'll wait and see. I hope

this

[ Page 262 ]

government will honour its word and make sure that those units will be built

for the people who need it most — so that we don't have people lying in the

streets, sleeping in the streets, homeless people — which I know every single

community represented in this chamber is in need of: safe and affordable

housing.

Child care

for women. I hope this government will pause…

Mr.

Speaker: Member, if you could just complete your remarks, please.

J. Kwan:

… and make sure and recognize that child care for women is not just for tennis

moms.

The

environment has to be held with the highest regard in the priorities in making

sure that the environment is protected.

Hon.

Speaker, I thank you for the time in speaking in this House. I would urge this

government to stop, reflect and make sure that they do take a balanced approach

in representing British Columbians.

J. Bray:

It's a pleasure to be able to rise and speak to the budget that we heard on July

30. Let me be very clear: this is a good-news budget. After ten long years of NDP

incompetence and mismanagement, the voices of small business, of tradespeople,

of civil servants and of working families have finally been heard.

It's been

interesting to listen to the debate, and I must comment at this point, as I see

some members are leaving. I am a civil servant, and I'm now honoured to be a

public servant. My wife, Launa, is a CGA who works in the private sector. We

both work very hard; we both work in our communities. I can assure you that we

make use of our child care resources in this city, and I can assure you that my

wife is not a tennis mom. I find that extremely insulting, and I know that the

working families in my riding use child care not because they're tennis moms,

not because they're rich and wealthy, but because they're working hard in the

community to make Victoria and Victoria–Beacon Hill a better riding. I know

that's why child care is there, and I find that very insulting from the member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

[1610]

I also had

the privilege of speaking to the throne speech, so I will not wax poetic again

about the virtues of my riding, Victoria–Beacon Hill. However, I do understand

that as the House has been sitting now for a couple of weeks, many of my

colleagues are starting to learn about the wonderful physical attributes in my

riding and also the tremendous sense of community that Victoria–Beacon Hill

offers. Since the Legislature sits in my riding, I continue to encourage my

colleagues to get out into our community, to frequent the local shops downtown,

in James Bay, in Fairfield and Cook Street Village, and get to know this riding

and this community, because it truly is a special community.

During the

recent election I had the honour, as did many of my colleagues, to knock on

literally thousands of doors and talk to our constituents, potential supporters

and voters. I heard from them questions like: "When will we get relief from

high taxes? When will get relief from overregulation by government —

unnecessary, burdensome and socially engineered regulation from government? When

will we get relief from public policy that's designed to serve an ideology

rather than the needs and wants of the community? When will we get relief from a

government that believes profit and success are to be feared? When will we get

relief from a government that doesn't use the same common sense in running

government that people use when they run their households and small

businesses?"

community got its answer on May 16 when we elected a B.C. Liberal government in

this province. On July 30 many members in my community who watched also saw in

the budget speech that we've held true to our commitments. They saw a budget

speech that delivered more on the promises that we made during the election. The

Leader of the Opposition rose earlier in this House and spoke about the risks

that she saw in that budget — the risks to the community, the risks to

programs, the risks to civil servants. Mr. Speaker, the greatest risk that

British Columbians faced in May was the prospect of another four years of that

government of incompetence and mismanagement.

The risk

that the Minister of Finance faced as he and his staff worked on this

mini-budget was the status quo. If the Minister of Finance had not done

anything, just allowed the next year to be like the previous ten years, this

province would have faced ever-increasing problems. We would have fallen further

behind our colleagues in the rest of Canada. We would have fallen behind our

neighbours to the south. It was the type of economic outlook that we could no

longer afford in this province, a province that used to be number one in this

country and now, shamefully, is lagging behind almost every other region in this

country.

The status

quo would not have supported the kind of programs and services that British

Columbians rely on and expect their government to provide. The status quo would

not have allowed us to be part of the global economy that does exist. It would

not allow us to take advantage of the people, talents, prospects, potential and

natural resources that are here. The status quo simply wasn't good enough.

That's why I'm so proud of the speech that we heard and the actions that the

Minister of Finance is taking. We're making sure that the status quo of the last

ten years isn't there. We're going to move forward. We're going to bring the

province forward. We're going to once again be the number one province, the

number one economy in this country, and I'm quite frankly excited about that.

The Leader

of the Opposition, in her initial address to the budget, also referred to how

proud we all were. She was somewhat sarcastic in the way she put it. Well, I am

very proud of that budget. I'm proud of this government. I'm proud of the bold

and decisive actions that are being taken by the Minister of Finance just 50-odd

days out from a change of government. We're sending a clear signal to British

Columbians and to people in the rest of Canada and in all of North

[ Page 263 ]

America that British Columbia is a place to come and invest. British Columbia

is a place to come and set up business. British Columbia is a place to stay and

expand your business. And British Columbia is a wonderful place, in doing your

business, to raise your family and be part of a community. I think that the

budget speech delivered on all of those promises.

[1615]

Leading up

to the election, the Premier was very clear and concise in his vision for the

province and his view that we have the potential to again be the number one

jurisdiction in the country. It was a vision that was viewed overwhelmingly by a

majority of British Columbians, and they ascribed to that vision. They grabbed

that vision, and they said: "Yes, we believe that as well." They

became enthusiastic about that vision. They said: "Yes, we want to work to

be number one again. Yes, we want to be a part of that." It was positive,

after ten years of negativity, ten years of bad news, ten years of budgets that

changed from week to week and flipped and flopped and fudged and did everything

else.

constituents and I believe all British Columbians were pleased to hear a budget

that was clear and concise, that followed the same message they heard from the

Premier during the election, that was positive, that spoke to the future and

that was progressive. It was the kind of budget that this province has sorely

missed over the last ten years, and I'm excited about that, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, in her reply, went on incessantly about

the budget rewarding government's corporate backers. Quite frankly, I'm already

getting very tired of that rhetoric. The fact is that this budget that we heard

from the Minister of Finance on July 30 benefits every single family in the

province. It rewards single parents, it rewards small business, it rewards those

who work in the forest and mining industries, it rewards those who work in high

technology and want to bring high-tech here and want to create high-tech

activities in this province, and it rewards those who are prepared to take new

risks in starting ventures in this province.

It rewards

our young people who are looking for their first opportunity to work in the

community as they're in high school, as they're in university. It's going to

create the kind of atmosphere where new jobs are going to be created, the new

jobs that for the last ten years our young people have not been able to find.

The reason why so many young people talk to many of my colleagues and myself

about the high student loan debts they incur while at university and college and

tech schools is not because university is too expensive. It is that every summer

they face the same problem: no employment for young people, because the economy

is so stifled. It's so overregulated, it's so overtaxed, and no employers are

willing to take the risk of adding one more employee, because they can't get the

productivity that they need.

This budget

will ensure that young people get the chance to participate in the economy,

especially during those summer months. It means that they'll have less of a

student loan burden, they'll be able to finish their university quicker, and

they'll be able to become full workers in our province. It's a budget that lays

out the plan that says this is a place where, when they graduate, they can

stay. They don't need to go to Alberta; they don't need to go to Washington;

they don't need to go to Toronto; they don't need to go to Wisconsin. This

budget tells our young people very clearly: "When you finish your

investment in your higher education, this is the place where you stay. This is

the place where you set down your roots. You stay here and build British

Columbia." That, I think, is great news for all young people in the

province.

The former

government liked to cherry-pick who would be rewarded when they did budgets and

who would be rewarded when they did special program announcements. The previous

government catered to special interests, small groups of people. This budget

rewards every single citizen in the province. The fact is that those making

under $60,000 a year receive the bulk of the tax cuts. That is not the corporate

backers that the opposition members prattle on about. In fact, those who are

making under $60,000, those average income earners, many of whom are in my

riding — it's the largest percentage of workers and families of my riding —

are the backbone of our community. Those working families, those small business

people, those tradespeople who go out day in and day out, making a living,

providing services, building our homes, fixing our roads in my community and

working for the civil service, are the ones that benefit from a tax cut.

[1620]

I find it

interesting that the opposition members continually chime about how bad the tax

cut is for those making under $60,000. Somehow, even though they had ten years

to do a tax cut and they never did, now all of a sudden, after the election —

when they said they wouldn't do them — they complain that the tax cuts to

those same families that they didn't give a tax cut to are too small. I find that

somewhat ironic.

I also find

the mathematics of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant interesting. She

continually pointed out during debate that those making over $200,000 received

more money in tax cuts than those making under $60,000. Well, of course they do,

because they're earning more money. The whole point of this budget is to tell

British Columbians that if you work harder, if you take more risks, if you do

more ventures in this province, you are going to benefit more. You're going to

be able to keep more of the money you earn in your community. I think that's

good news.

The other

thing this budget speech told British Columbians very clearly, I think, is that

we recognize that for families, the best people to make decisions on what

families need are the families themselves. After ten years of government

collecting all the money it possibly could through taxation and overregulation

and "overfeeing" people and then turning around and handing it back in

the form of grants and other activities, to tell British Columbia families what

they

[ Page 264 ]

should do with it and how wonderful the government was in doing it for

them….

recognize as a government that families that get to keep more of the money they

earn will make the best decisions to meet their own needs in their own

communities without a big provincial government in Victoria making all those

decisions. We also recognize — and this budget is very clear about this —

that money kept in the hands of working British Columbians is far more effective

in stimulating and sustaining real economic growth than it ever will be in the

hands of politicians or in the coffers of Victoria.

The budget

also recognizes — and the Minister of Finance alluded to this very clearly —

that the money we collect through taxation is not our money. It's not our money

to do with as we please. It's the money that's earned by British Columbians; it

is their money. The public contracts with government to provide services and

then, through taxation, provides us the funding with which to do that.

But they

ask simple things of government. They ask that when government collects the

money and then goes out to spend it, they spend it with a plan, they spend

it in a reasonable manner, are clear about what they are trying to do, measure

those outcomes and make those outcomes very clear. British Columbians want no

more fast ferries, no more Skeena Cellulose bailouts, no more massive,

one-size-fits-all programs, no more half-baked ideas that are reacting to a

small demonstration on the steps of the Legislature or one headline and cost

taxpayers millions and millions of dollars.

This budget

recognizes that the province needs to get its economic house in order, because

we do not compete, as I said earlier, just with other provinces. We don't just

compete with the United States, our largest trading partner and a mammoth

economy all on its own. Despite the various protests to the contrary, we are in

fact competing with the entire world. We're part of a global economy. This

budget takes the first steps necessary toward making British Columbia globally

competitive while still honouring our number one commitment to protect health

care and education in this province.

The

opposition members' rhetoric about massive tax cuts to programs, massive layoffs

in the civil service and the putting of those who are in need at great risk is

fearmongering at its worst. It's something that the previous government was very

good at. They would continually put fear in every single group: "If you

don't vote for us, if you don't support us, all these terrible things are going

to happen." In the meantime, those very groups suffered enormously under

the previous government.

In fact, I

find it very interesting that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant talked

about some potential cuts she referred to in the Ministry of Human Resources. I

believe those are in fact simply administration savings through some contracting

changes. They're not actually cuts to programs. I find that very interesting,

because as you may know, Mr. Speaker, I worked for 13 years in the Ministry of

Human Resources. I was there on the front lines when in 1996 that government cut

basic welfare rates to single people in this province. It's my understanding

that it's the first time since B.C. joined Confederation that there was a cut to

basic welfare rates.

[1625]

I find it

ironic that this member talks about potential cuts when her government's record

of cuts is there for everybody to see. They went after the very groups that they

claim to protect, by cutting those rates.

When I

worked as a financial assistance worker in the east side of Vancouver, I knew

what most of my clients talked about and needed. When I was a district

supervisor in the east side of Vancouver, I knew what most of our clients talked

about and asked for. When I was a policy analyst for that ministry here in

Victoria, I knew what the research and all the economic indicators told us was

necessary for people on income assistance. It was what the people on income

assistance wanted themselves: they wanted a job.

They wanted

a chance to participate, to be involved in an economy that would sustain their

employment long enough to get out of the rut of income assistance, employment

insurance, income assistance, job, and so on and so forth. They recognized the

need to have a strong private sector economy that encouraged economic growth,

encouraged small business and encouraged expansion of business, because that was

where their opportunities for entering the workforce were.

They were

so angry that for the last ten years the government that was there, the NDP

government, just didn't get it. They didn't understand that the best economic

security for people in need was a strong economy. The best economic security for

a family was employment. It wasn't government handouts; it wasn't another

government program. It certainly wasn't another advertising program. It was a

strong economy.

This budget

that was presented to us on July 30 starts that process of providing those on

income assistance, those who are in need, the best opportunity. That is a job;

that is employment. I'm very proud that our government is taking such bold

action right away on that issue.

The budget

also addresses some other fundamental questions of what programs government

should offer. The core services review will look at every aspect of government

to determine: are we providing the services that people need? Are we doing it in

the most effective manner? Is there another way it can be done?

The member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has deferred any further comments because she

hopes, as she said, it's not a euphemism.

Well,

having worked for that government for ten years, I can tell you their approach

to dealing with budget crises. Their approach was to pick a number, any number

— 5 percent, 7 percent, 6 percent — and then simply cut across all ministry

lines, regardless of how it might affect that ministry, regardless of the fact

that there was no plan to implement that cut. It was just a matter of cutting

[ Page 265 ]

That meant

simply that you had literally hundreds of government programs and government

contracts — including contracts with foster parents, day care centres,

employment agencies, employment training programs, colleges and universities —

that lost a percentage of their funding but were still expected to carry on with

that program. What did that mean? That meant that the program was underfunded.

It couldn't meet its results; it couldn't meet its objectives. But for the

previous government that wasn't a problem, because they simply said: "Well,

we'll cut some more." And eventually those programs would fall off the

table, because there was no plan.

This budget

is all about providing a plan, providing a framework with which government will

allow all in the province to understand the directions we're going. It will

provide a framework for our institutions in health care and education to plan

three years out, so that they can make the decisions from a strategic planning standpoint. That will ensure that every dollar that

taxpayers work for and earn and then give to government will meet the objectives

that they, the public, set out in the first place.

The core

services review is not about finding or cloaking ways of cutting programs or

cutting services or any of those things. The Minister of Finance and the Premier

have been very clear about what the core services review is all about. It's

about ensuring that when government involves itself on behalf of the people of

British Columbia in providing a service, it is done in the most effective and

efficient way it can be. That's exactly how small businesses operate; it's

exactly how households operate. Being married to an accountant, I can assure you

that's exactly how my household operates, and I don't think people should expect

any less from government when we handle the public's money.

[1630]

Now, my

constituents want that review to occur. Civil servants have spoken to me

constantly about the need for that review to happen. They've seen contracts and

programs come up out of nowhere. They don't know where they came from. Nobody

from within the professional bureaucracy ever came up with that idea, but there

it is. There are millions of dollars committed to it.

constituents want to ensure that the dollars and the services that the

government provides go to meet real needs and go first and foremost to those who

need them the most. At times when basic health care is at risk, when